The chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, General Pace's morality comment on gays has unknowingly had an effect on the '08 Presidential run for both parties. In the rising controversy, Presidential candidates are weighing in with whether they believe Pace's comment was appropriate and with where their owns beliefs stand.
Kansas Senator and Republican hopefully Sam Brownback stated that criticism of Pace's comments were, "both unfair and unfortunate." Sen Brownback further stated that he believes homosexual acts are indeed immoral. Barack Obama stated that he did not agree with Pace's comments. Hillary Clinton stated that It was for others to conclude whether homosexuality is immoral or not. After receiving pressure from gay friends, she reversed her statement and stated that homosexuality is not immoral.
It is about time a Republican stood up and stated what the majority of America agrees with and wants to hear: Homosexuality is immoral, wrong and should not be condoned by any municipal, state or federal government.
On the flip side, this issue has brought to light yet another example of the Democratic shortcomings in their hopes to take the White House in '08. On top of Obama's lack of responsibility, past drug use and limited time in elected office, you can now add lack of morals to the list. Clinton's beliefs and comments on this subject are even more disturbing. In an effort to dodge the issue, she tried to put the ball back in the individuals court to make the decision. However, as a President you need to lead in the face of opposition and criticism. She failed. Then she changed her mind under pressure from gay constituents. A President cannot lead from the armchair always making decisions to please others. She failed again.
If you want to be elected then state what you believe and stick to your guns. Let the votes fall where they may.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Gays Offended by General Pace's Morality Comment
Gay advocacy groups are demanding an apology from Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he stated, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts”, “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way”. General Pace was speaking in regards to the military's don't ask, don't tell policy that states gays can serve in the military if they are not open about their sexuality.
Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass, has introduced legislation to ban the policy and allow gays to openly serve in the military.
General Pace should not feel pressured to apologize for his comments. His comments are justified and if gays are offended then obviously they are having personal conflicts with the morality of their sexuality.
If gays are open about their sexuality, I have no doubt that it would undermine the military. It would effect troop morale, recruitment and overall unit cohesion. In the truest goal of the military, units should be well trained fluid fighting machines. How can a soldier meet this goal if he is lying in a ditch with another soldier and having to worry about his sexual orientation instead of focusing on his job. Fighting units are close knit groups. Determining that part of the group is gay and living an immoral lifestyle will lead to a dismantling of trust and the soldier will be singled out for differential treatment. Units having to deal with this will suffer more combat casualties then a traditional cohesive unit.
Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass, has introduced legislation to ban the policy and allow gays to openly serve in the military.
General Pace should not feel pressured to apologize for his comments. His comments are justified and if gays are offended then obviously they are having personal conflicts with the morality of their sexuality.
If gays are open about their sexuality, I have no doubt that it would undermine the military. It would effect troop morale, recruitment and overall unit cohesion. In the truest goal of the military, units should be well trained fluid fighting machines. How can a soldier meet this goal if he is lying in a ditch with another soldier and having to worry about his sexual orientation instead of focusing on his job. Fighting units are close knit groups. Determining that part of the group is gay and living an immoral lifestyle will lead to a dismantling of trust and the soldier will be singled out for differential treatment. Units having to deal with this will suffer more combat casualties then a traditional cohesive unit.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Designer Babies
A disturbing and un-ethical trend is emerging in today's doctor's office. This tend is threatening the values that Christians hold dear and is taking the place of God's greatest work...creating life. More and more, people are opting to design their own babies instead of rejoicing in what God gives them. Designer babies can be defined as several different things. You can choose the sex of the baby, which egg is utilized for fertilization, to screen out birth defects or to intentionally alter the genetic makeup of the baby so it is born with a certain trait. For example, 4% of clinics surveyed admitted to having performed procedures to help couples create children with the same disability they have, such as dwarfism or deafness.
On a regular basis, doctors are asking patients if they prefer to take a test known as Amniocentesis. This test will educate the parents as to whether their child, growing in the womb, will have any kind of birth defect among other things. Armed with this knowledge, a parent can opt to have an abortion instead of dealing with the hardship of a handicapped child.
Don't get me wrong, I will be the first to admit, caring for a handicapped child would be a tremendous and arduous responsibility. However, a baby is a gift from God and if handicapped, can still be loved and can still show love. These children can still show parents wonderful things and teach a couple lessons of their own. At no time and under no circumstance, is abortion right. God gives us our child and we have been selected to raise it, handicap or otherwise and we should not fine tune that which God has blessed us with.
On a regular basis, doctors are asking patients if they prefer to take a test known as Amniocentesis. This test will educate the parents as to whether their child, growing in the womb, will have any kind of birth defect among other things. Armed with this knowledge, a parent can opt to have an abortion instead of dealing with the hardship of a handicapped child.
Don't get me wrong, I will be the first to admit, caring for a handicapped child would be a tremendous and arduous responsibility. However, a baby is a gift from God and if handicapped, can still be loved and can still show love. These children can still show parents wonderful things and teach a couple lessons of their own. At no time and under no circumstance, is abortion right. God gives us our child and we have been selected to raise it, handicap or otherwise and we should not fine tune that which God has blessed us with.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Baby Survives Abortion, Mom Sues
In March 2004, Jennifer Raper, 45 of Boston found out she was pregnant. She elected to have Planned Parenthood terminate her child due to financial problems. The abortion was performed and unknowingly failed. 20 weeks later another doctor was unable to determine that she was pregnant when she complained of pelvic pain. Raper is now suing Planned Parenthood and the two doctors for the cost she will incur raising her child.
First of all, where is Raper's responsibility? She should have taken proper precautions to avoid getting pregnant if she knew she was not financially capable of caring for a child. Second, she is a little old to be risking the possibility of having a child which is yet another reason she should have protected herself better.
As much as I demise Planned Parenthood and what they stand for, they should not be held accountable for Raper's mistake. Further, Raper's daughter should be taken from her and given to a loving foster family who may desire a child but are unable to have one. Although Raper's daughter does not have any known medical problems as a result of a failed abortion, I hope she will not develop any in the future. One thing is for sure, the emotional scares that will be inflicted years from now when Raper's daughter learns that she was almost murdered by her mother will be unmistakable.
First of all, where is Raper's responsibility? She should have taken proper precautions to avoid getting pregnant if she knew she was not financially capable of caring for a child. Second, she is a little old to be risking the possibility of having a child which is yet another reason she should have protected herself better.
As much as I demise Planned Parenthood and what they stand for, they should not be held accountable for Raper's mistake. Further, Raper's daughter should be taken from her and given to a loving foster family who may desire a child but are unable to have one. Although Raper's daughter does not have any known medical problems as a result of a failed abortion, I hope she will not develop any in the future. One thing is for sure, the emotional scares that will be inflicted years from now when Raper's daughter learns that she was almost murdered by her mother will be unmistakable.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Foot Washing = Christian Hazing
On April 10th, Savannah State University suspended the charter of a Christian Campus Ministry after it was determined that the foot washing ceremony conducted by leaders and new members was found to be a form of hazing. On September 11th, the university expelled the ministry from campus after it violated the suspension when several members attended an off campus Christian music concert on the weekend. University officials claim that foot washing is inherently dangerous even if no one objects to it and thus considered hazing.
This is a perfect example of how today's American society is suppressing the freedom of religion. This case is based, on its most basic foundation, of freedom of religion which is what America was founded on. However, today's liberal educational systems believe that it is not freedom of religion but rather freedom from religion that is the basic principle of America's foundation.
This is not a form of hazing, rather it is a voluntary display of love for fellow Christians and a way of showing that love, the love Christ had for his disciples, to the rest of the world. Hazing has traditionally consisted of actions made to demoralize or take advantage of new recruits within a college or professional environment. This case is extremely different and should not be subjugated to this reasoning based on the fact that washing anothers feet could be un-healthy or dirty. It is not forced on anyone and is not considered mandatory for acceptance, thus is cannot be considered hazing or a violation of the university's regulations.
This is a perfect example of how today's American society is suppressing the freedom of religion. This case is based, on its most basic foundation, of freedom of religion which is what America was founded on. However, today's liberal educational systems believe that it is not freedom of religion but rather freedom from religion that is the basic principle of America's foundation.
This is not a form of hazing, rather it is a voluntary display of love for fellow Christians and a way of showing that love, the love Christ had for his disciples, to the rest of the world. Hazing has traditionally consisted of actions made to demoralize or take advantage of new recruits within a college or professional environment. This case is extremely different and should not be subjugated to this reasoning based on the fact that washing anothers feet could be un-healthy or dirty. It is not forced on anyone and is not considered mandatory for acceptance, thus is cannot be considered hazing or a violation of the university's regulations.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Suit Seeks End to Faith Based Initiatives
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to thwart President Bush's creation of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. The Office was created to assist religious groups compete with secular organizations for federal grants to provide social services. A US trial court originally dismissed the suit, however, it was overturned by the 7th US District Court of Appeals. The suit will be reviewed in the US Supreme Court today.
The foundation believes that citizens should have the right to challenges governmental spending as it relates to the separation of church and state. The establishment Clause of the US Constitution states that government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The foundation believes that President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives is nothing less than an executive order providing assistance to religious groups thus in violation of the Establishment Cause.
The Establishment Clause specifically refers to Congressional spending and not the Executive Branch. If the foundation wins their suit, this will open the door for anyone to bring suit against any governmental action involving religion. The framers of the Constitution did not envision restrictions against governmental action that was directed at assisting its citizenship with promoting their individual beliefs, rather it created the Establishment Clause to stop government from creating a religious hierarchy that applied to all citizens. If the government assist or guides a religious group on how to achieve its goal that does not mean that the government is pressing a religious belief upon every citizen. If it offends you then look the other way, just as I look the other way when you worship your pagan idols.
The foundation believes that citizens should have the right to challenges governmental spending as it relates to the separation of church and state. The establishment Clause of the US Constitution states that government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The foundation believes that President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives is nothing less than an executive order providing assistance to religious groups thus in violation of the Establishment Cause.
The Establishment Clause specifically refers to Congressional spending and not the Executive Branch. If the foundation wins their suit, this will open the door for anyone to bring suit against any governmental action involving religion. The framers of the Constitution did not envision restrictions against governmental action that was directed at assisting its citizenship with promoting their individual beliefs, rather it created the Establishment Clause to stop government from creating a religious hierarchy that applied to all citizens. If the government assist or guides a religious group on how to achieve its goal that does not mean that the government is pressing a religious belief upon every citizen. If it offends you then look the other way, just as I look the other way when you worship your pagan idols.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Gay Education for Elementary Age Children
Two families filed suit in federal court stating that the town of Lexington, Massachusetts had violated the families right to religious freedom because the school was teaching their elementary age children about gay marriage. The suit was filed after parents found out that the school was reading a book entitled, "King and King" to their children. In this book, a prince rejects numerous woman as his princess and finally falls in love with another prince whom he lives happily ever after with.
In the suit the parents stated, the school has "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith". A federal judge dismissed the suit saying, public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." The judge further stated, "diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation".
If public schools are going to continue to teach this garbage in violation of the parents rights then the parent should at least be notified prior to that days teaching. This would allow the parents to withhold their children from school that day.
How is learning about gay marriage going to make our children more engaged and productive in society? It may make them more engaged in the militant homosexual movement but it will not make them any better of a person. There is nothing magical about being tolerant of gay people. It is a sin. Although I may tolerate gay people, I will not tolerate the homosexual life-style and what they are doing is still wrong.
Parents send their children to public schools for many reasons. This "education" is paid for by the tax-payer. How can a school or judge say that it is the schools right to teach this garbage if it is against what the majority of the population believe. 70% of Americans are against gay marriage but yet we let our school system infest our children's heads with it. Topics such as gay marriage should be taught in the home if at all. Schools are to teach our children the basics such as math and science and leave the social and religous upbringing to the parents.
In the suit the parents stated, the school has "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith". A federal judge dismissed the suit saying, public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." The judge further stated, "diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation".
If public schools are going to continue to teach this garbage in violation of the parents rights then the parent should at least be notified prior to that days teaching. This would allow the parents to withhold their children from school that day.
How is learning about gay marriage going to make our children more engaged and productive in society? It may make them more engaged in the militant homosexual movement but it will not make them any better of a person. There is nothing magical about being tolerant of gay people. It is a sin. Although I may tolerate gay people, I will not tolerate the homosexual life-style and what they are doing is still wrong.
Parents send their children to public schools for many reasons. This "education" is paid for by the tax-payer. How can a school or judge say that it is the schools right to teach this garbage if it is against what the majority of the population believe. 70% of Americans are against gay marriage but yet we let our school system infest our children's heads with it. Topics such as gay marriage should be taught in the home if at all. Schools are to teach our children the basics such as math and science and leave the social and religous upbringing to the parents.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
First Freedom Project
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced the creation of the First Freedom Project, a program that will strengthen and preserve religious freedom. "Throughout our history, nothing has defined us as a nation more than our respect for religious freedom," said Gonzales. The initiative will create a task force which will review policies and cases to ensure that religious freedom is being protected, as well as distribute religious freedom information in several other forms.
This sounds great and knowing the current administration's values, I hope that this is directed at enforcing the religious freedom of Christians. In today's world, it seems as though every religion is tolerated to a greater extent than that of Christianity. Christianity, which America was founded upon, is continually covered up as if it's an embarrassment and not a modern accepted belief system. Hopefully this push strengthens those Americans with faith and values to stand strong against those who seek to destroy us.
This sounds great and knowing the current administration's values, I hope that this is directed at enforcing the religious freedom of Christians. In today's world, it seems as though every religion is tolerated to a greater extent than that of Christianity. Christianity, which America was founded upon, is continually covered up as if it's an embarrassment and not a modern accepted belief system. Hopefully this push strengthens those Americans with faith and values to stand strong against those who seek to destroy us.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
More Evidence Against Roe V Wade
In the mist of current news regarding the case of Roe V Wade, it is amazing at how much news is overlooked if it supports the opinion that abortion on demand should be over-turned. In October of last year a baby girl was born. She weighed less than 10 ounces and was only 9 1/2 inches long. She was born and survived after only 22 weeks in gestation. Viability was not considered possible until at least 28 weeks of gestation.
This is one convincing piece of evidence that declares that the supporters of abortion on demand do not have sufficient proof to prove that aborted babies were not even alive during the procedure. Their foundation lays upon the belief that abortion is fine because the baby is not viable, meaning not alive. This shows that a baby is in fact viable at this stage and abortion is nothing less than pre-meditated murder.
This is one convincing piece of evidence that declares that the supporters of abortion on demand do not have sufficient proof to prove that aborted babies were not even alive during the procedure. Their foundation lays upon the belief that abortion is fine because the baby is not viable, meaning not alive. This shows that a baby is in fact viable at this stage and abortion is nothing less than pre-meditated murder.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Family Values Hate Speech
Today, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case in which the judges will determine whether or not "hate speech" should be aloud in the work place. What constitutes the 'hate speech" in question? "Natural family", "marriage" and " family values".
Several employees in an Oakland workplace were attempting to start a group for people of faith to express their views. In a notice they posted, employers stated that statements of a homophobic nature were made and stated that it boiled down to harassment. Both employees were threatened with termination. This came after e-mails were sent that promoted homosexuality and denounced Christian values earlier by other employees.
This is a clear violation of the employees first amendment rights and a clear example of the immoral direction that this country is headed. The Constitution gives anyone the right to state or relay any message as long as it is not clearly offensive to another. Here lies the problem. Traditional marriage and Christian values are not offensive per se in that they have been the mainstream in America since it's creation. In fact, the country's founding fathers based the creation of the Constitution on their belief in God. Homosexuality and other sinful lifestyles are considered offensive to the majority of the American population due to their extreme and un-natural acts.
I hope this case finds its way to the US Supreme Court and that the justices find that the right of these employees and the majority of Americans should be protected from militant activists for gay marriage. This case must be decided based on the original content of the Constitution and not the bastardized version handed down by liberal justices who feel it is their duty to change the rights of the US citizenship even though the majority of it feels different.
Several employees in an Oakland workplace were attempting to start a group for people of faith to express their views. In a notice they posted, employers stated that statements of a homophobic nature were made and stated that it boiled down to harassment. Both employees were threatened with termination. This came after e-mails were sent that promoted homosexuality and denounced Christian values earlier by other employees.
This is a clear violation of the employees first amendment rights and a clear example of the immoral direction that this country is headed. The Constitution gives anyone the right to state or relay any message as long as it is not clearly offensive to another. Here lies the problem. Traditional marriage and Christian values are not offensive per se in that they have been the mainstream in America since it's creation. In fact, the country's founding fathers based the creation of the Constitution on their belief in God. Homosexuality and other sinful lifestyles are considered offensive to the majority of the American population due to their extreme and un-natural acts.
I hope this case finds its way to the US Supreme Court and that the justices find that the right of these employees and the majority of Americans should be protected from militant activists for gay marriage. This case must be decided based on the original content of the Constitution and not the bastardized version handed down by liberal justices who feel it is their duty to change the rights of the US citizenship even though the majority of it feels different.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Death Certificates for Aborted Babies
Tennessee has proposed legislation that would require doctors who perform abortions to file a death certificate within 10 days. Although, some statistics are maintained on abortion, they are not kept on all that are performed in Tennessee. This legislation would allow citizens to see how many babies are actually being aborted and would most likely make the abortion a matter of public record.
Keri Adams, vice president of Planned Parenthood in Tennessee, called the proposal "an attempt to terrorize frightened and vulnerable women who are seeking abortion". "We think it's clearly a violation of privacy".
If a woman is not responsible enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, then she must deal with the consequences of wanting to murder that baby. Why do we concern ourselves with the "privacy" of the mother when we should concern ourselves with the baby who's body is going to be ripped apart and it's life ended by an invasive procedure?
Keri Adams, vice president of Planned Parenthood in Tennessee, called the proposal "an attempt to terrorize frightened and vulnerable women who are seeking abortion". "We think it's clearly a violation of privacy".
If a woman is not responsible enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, then she must deal with the consequences of wanting to murder that baby. Why do we concern ourselves with the "privacy" of the mother when we should concern ourselves with the baby who's body is going to be ripped apart and it's life ended by an invasive procedure?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
